Manoj Kumar Jha and Ghazala Jamil write: Why Pratap Bhanu Mehta is wrong about social justice politics and caste census – The Indian Express

The dominant understanding of caste in India has been focused on the idea of caste as a cultural phenomenon. Politics that demand caste and broader social justice are derisively described as identity politics. Pratap Bhanu Mehta rehashes the argument that social justice enhances social divisions (Mirage of social justice, IE, April 21). On the one hand, he seems to argue that the social justice discourse has focused too much on the distribution of public resources based on caste identities, on the other, he calls for recognising the ethical issues of discrimination and creating effective institutions to address caste inequities.

You have exhausted your monthly limit of free stories.

To continue reading,simply register or sign in

Read this story with a special discount on our digital access plan. Now at just Rs 100 per month.

This premium article is free for now.

Register to continue reading this story.

This content is exclusive for our subscribers.

Subscribe to get unlimited access to The Indian Express exclusive and premium stories.

This content is exclusive for our subscribers.

Subscribe now to get unlimited access to The Indian Express exclusive and premium stories.

It bears clarification: What is Mehtas understanding of inclusive economic growth and social justice? Mehta terms the Opposition uniting around social justice a politically unwise idea. According to him, it may bring short-term gains but undermine long-term goals. With due respect to his intellectual calibre, should we not place the idea of social justice in the contemporary backdrop of increasing poverty as well as the disturbing trend of inequality? Why should the further marginalisation of groups already on the margins for hundreds of years not be the fulcrum for unity amongst opposition parties as well as civil society groups? The most basic understanding of social justice is the struggle for equitable division of opportunities, and privileges as well as the broadest possible representation in institutions.

Let us remember that caste-based oppression creates material conditions. This materiality of caste inequality is produced not just in economic and socio-cultural terms but also through political, especially electoral-political, machinations. Mehtas assertion that political mobilisation on the social justice plank will not address the root causes of caste inequities is offered without any justification. He further dubs this a form of majoritarianism. It is the opposite the denial of social justice in India is largely a product of the ideology of Hindutva. In this formulation, caste is portrayed as a troubling but natural flaw of Indian society, which can be papered over by policy neglect and political silence. The political obfuscation of caste-based inequalities can only be countered by a recognition of its historical and political dimensions and a political commitment to challenging the structural barriers that perpetuate caste-based oppression. In his opinion, political parties like the RJD in India are guilty of exactly this crime.

Mehta is perhaps not adequately acquainted with the reality that discrimination in education starts early in India. The RJD and other opposition parties that he accuses of reducing social justice to distributing government largesse based on officially reified caste identities and decimating public education and destructing universities have, in fact, invested heavily in school education systems so that the marginalised sections can simply reach public universities. The quantum of ambition in Bihars youth for competitive exams for public jobs and their presence in all sectors of the private economy across India and abroad today is a testament to the massification of education, despite suffering from the effects of uneven development and the failure of cooperative federalism. It is a no-brainer that dignity cannot be achieved by mere sloganeering. The opposition parties that he never tires of lampooning, combine dignity and development to aim at social justice. However, development is never sought by sacrificing dignity and justice.

The idea that universal remedies can address caste injustices adequately is flawed and can even be unjust in itself. Often, these remedies are proposed by voices that lack self-reflexivity on their own caste privilege. Quotas and reservations that provide opportunities for historically disadvantaged communities are perceived as a form of reverse discrimination by members of dominant castes lacking a sense of social justice and displaying an exaggerated sense of entitlement.

Sadly, Mehta indulges in an intellectual device now regrettably common in India. He deploys the vocabulary developed by the illustrious history of the movement for social justice to argue against the value of mobilising Indian voters around social justice. So, it is not surprising that he embeds an argument against the caste census within a diatribe dressed as a loftier notion of social justice above electoral politics.

The dominant discourse on caste in India has been characterised by a reluctance to acknowledge the scale and severity of caste-based violence and discrimination. It is unfortunate that the failure to recognise caste injustice is a product of a wider culture of denial and impunity. Countering this requires a sustained and concerted effort to raise awareness about the realities of oppression and to challenge the impunity of those who perpetrate caste-based violence and discrimination in various forms. In an environment where a blatantly majoritarian party is intent on affecting a total institutional capture, electoral politics is exactly the arena where that majoritarian consensus has to be challenged, resisted and defeated.

We honestly need to challenge the culture of members of dominant castes, who are often in positions of power and influence, proposing universal remedies and deriding social justice as merely a slogan without acknowledging their own caste-based privilege. Besides, a section of the ruling elite well-supported by the mainstream media has been speaking in a chorus that caste enumeration or caste census shall lead to casteism, which lacks substance. Such fear-mongering needs to be addressed philosophically as well as by citing the data.

That is why we reiterate that social justice fortunately is not a mirage but a hope. If that is a bad idea, we need such bad ideas in abundance.

Jha is MP, Rajya Sabha (Rashtriya Janata Dal) and Ghazala Jamil teaches at CSLG, JNU

First published on: 28-04-2023 at 15:33 IST

Go here to read the rest:

Manoj Kumar Jha and Ghazala Jamil write: Why Pratap Bhanu Mehta is wrong about social justice politics and caste census - The Indian Express